BibChr
Joined Jul 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews95
BibChr's rating
There's about thirty minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Due to decent ratings at Rotten Tomatoes and a premise with potential, I began watching this movie. By sheer force of will, I gave it about 30 minutes, then bailed out and came here to warn you.
What this movie does is present the hapless viewer with a completely unsympathetic central character who does not improve. He has no arc.
He is stupid and unteachable at the start of the movie, and at least 30 minutes in he is showing absolutely no sign of improving. He does not know what he is doing, but he will not listen to or learn from people who do. He will not follow the simplest set of instructions, or learn from the disaster that occurred just minutes ago when he failed to follow instructions.
If we are supposed to care about the central character, we are given no reason to do so other than that he is in bad circumstances. But we soon learn that this is his normal mode, because he doesn't think and he doesn't listen and he doesn't learn, so in this world bad circumstances are the best he can hope for.
Just don't start the movie. I wish I hadn't. Do something good with your time. Thank me later.
Due to decent ratings at Rotten Tomatoes and a premise with potential, I began watching this movie. By sheer force of will, I gave it about 30 minutes, then bailed out and came here to warn you.
What this movie does is present the hapless viewer with a completely unsympathetic central character who does not improve. He has no arc.
He is stupid and unteachable at the start of the movie, and at least 30 minutes in he is showing absolutely no sign of improving. He does not know what he is doing, but he will not listen to or learn from people who do. He will not follow the simplest set of instructions, or learn from the disaster that occurred just minutes ago when he failed to follow instructions.
If we are supposed to care about the central character, we are given no reason to do so other than that he is in bad circumstances. But we soon learn that this is his normal mode, because he doesn't think and he doesn't listen and he doesn't learn, so in this world bad circumstances are the best he can hope for.
Just don't start the movie. I wish I hadn't. Do something good with your time. Thank me later.
This is a bad movie. I don't know how to say it better. I'll just be rewording myself.
The first movie was all right. The trailer for this looked good.
But holy cow, what a bad movie. Almost everything about it was bad. I mean, even the cinematography was bad! Blurry shots, shots filmed into the sun, shaky shots... it went on and on and on.
And the plot was meandering and confusing.
And did I mention Jon Bernthal? Was any dialogue actually written for him? Or did the director just say, "You know that annoying, one-dimensional, obnoxious, lowbrow character you play? Just be him, say the things he'd say. Yell a lot. Swear a lot - and I do mean a lot. Just be an irredeemably exhausting and graceless character, that's what we're after."
I could say more, but you get the idea.
One good thing in this movie: J. K. Simmons. And he's given very little to do, and very little time in which to do it.
Avoid. You'll never get that time back.
The first movie was all right. The trailer for this looked good.
But holy cow, what a bad movie. Almost everything about it was bad. I mean, even the cinematography was bad! Blurry shots, shots filmed into the sun, shaky shots... it went on and on and on.
And the plot was meandering and confusing.
And did I mention Jon Bernthal? Was any dialogue actually written for him? Or did the director just say, "You know that annoying, one-dimensional, obnoxious, lowbrow character you play? Just be him, say the things he'd say. Yell a lot. Swear a lot - and I do mean a lot. Just be an irredeemably exhausting and graceless character, that's what we're after."
I could say more, but you get the idea.
One good thing in this movie: J. K. Simmons. And he's given very little to do, and very little time in which to do it.
Avoid. You'll never get that time back.
My three stars are for the movie. Of course, the Gospel of John itself gets ten stars. It merits a far better treatment.
The movie is a muddled mess. We're told that the actors, who are seldom and barely audible, are speaking Aramaic. I couldn't make out a for-sure Aramaic word.
But that's not the greater issue. The greater issue is that the action and the words often do not at all accord with the narrative. The way the creators combine the reading of the Gospel itself and the action is simply maddeningly confusing. Often, there is either no clear correspondence, or actual contradiction, between narrative and action.
The narrator says Jesus lifts his eyes and prays, clearly aloud; onscreen "Jesus" closes his eyes and says nothing. Narrator says Jesus is struck, and responds to the blow; onscreen "Jesus" is not struck. Gospel of John Jesus is teaching; onscreen "Jesus" is pounding the table and shouting and saying God-knows-what.
Then there are continuity errors. "Jesus" is badly beaten and bloodied. Then he isn't. Then he is. Then he isn't. Then he is.
Other irritations: the performer acts as if healing the blind man took a lot out of Jesus, exhausted him. There is no hint of this in the Gospels. Jesus can literally stop a storm and calm a raging lake with a word. Surely He can heal a blind man without collapsing.
And on and on and on.
So, as a lover of Jesus and of the Gospel of John, I did not find viewing the movie an inspiring experience, but rather a frustrating one. Better just to read the Gospel.
The movie is a muddled mess. We're told that the actors, who are seldom and barely audible, are speaking Aramaic. I couldn't make out a for-sure Aramaic word.
But that's not the greater issue. The greater issue is that the action and the words often do not at all accord with the narrative. The way the creators combine the reading of the Gospel itself and the action is simply maddeningly confusing. Often, there is either no clear correspondence, or actual contradiction, between narrative and action.
The narrator says Jesus lifts his eyes and prays, clearly aloud; onscreen "Jesus" closes his eyes and says nothing. Narrator says Jesus is struck, and responds to the blow; onscreen "Jesus" is not struck. Gospel of John Jesus is teaching; onscreen "Jesus" is pounding the table and shouting and saying God-knows-what.
Then there are continuity errors. "Jesus" is badly beaten and bloodied. Then he isn't. Then he is. Then he isn't. Then he is.
Other irritations: the performer acts as if healing the blind man took a lot out of Jesus, exhausted him. There is no hint of this in the Gospels. Jesus can literally stop a storm and calm a raging lake with a word. Surely He can heal a blind man without collapsing.
And on and on and on.
So, as a lover of Jesus and of the Gospel of John, I did not find viewing the movie an inspiring experience, but rather a frustrating one. Better just to read the Gospel.
